Um. Uh yeah -- please stike lead-out from my message and replace it
with track 1. Most track 1s start at 150...
> Subdividing on early (first?) track is a bad plan because you'll find
> out that a lot of Pop music producers have heard of the Golden Rules
> and they'll make all their tracks approximately the same length. This
> puts all those CDs (and there's a lot of them, it's not called Popular
> Music for nothing) into the same subdivision.
One track won't be enough even if the golden rule didn't exist. It
would return too many items.
> Instead I was suggesting, IIRC, that you use the LEAD OUT entry. This
> in effect marks the *length* of the CD. Conventions of album recording
> mean that you'll still see some clustering, but it should give you
> acceptable results (much better than 1st track length)
That might work, but again as above, there may be too many matches with
that technique.
> Even better -- this distinguishes the case where albums are re-released
> with an extra track for sales reasons, if we're not already ignoring it
> at this stage because of the # of tracks. The first N tracks will of
> course be the same in the re-release, only the increases length &&
> extra TOC entry are different.
Eeeek. I think that is going too far with this logic -- afterall, a CD
that has a different number of tracks should have a completely new
entry in the index. So, a fuzzy search should eliminate all CDs that
don't have the same number of tracks...
I think I'll be able to write one nasty SQL query that will perform the
whole match on the server. I don't know what that will do to the SQL
server...
--ruaok Freezerburn! All else is only icing. -- Soul Coughing
Robert Kaye -- robert nospam at moon.eorbit.net http://moon.eorbit.net/~robert